Let me start with a positive comment. Remember, this is the best I could come up with:

If we had gotten the pope we DESERVE, we would now have Pope Snoop Dogg.

And thus ends the positivity.

Francis, like his homeland of Argentina, is a total disaster. He has overseen the near-total destruction of the Church in Argentina. He hates and despises the Tridentine Mass, which is to say that he hates the Mass - let's not mince words, and is a rabid persecutor of anyone in Argentina who shows ANY signs of tradition. A priest in Argentina literally risks the end of his career if he wears a cassock in public. He has forbidden the Tridentine Mass in Argentina, which is an act of direct disobedience, specifically against the papal decree Summorum Pontificum, but embraces horrific "charismatic" and "Superfun Rockband"-type liturgical sacrilege.

Which brings us to his regard for the papacy, and the Church itself. He said yesterday in his bizarre little speech, again and again, that he was the Bishop of Rome, which is true, but in being the Bishop of Rome the pope is the head of the Universal Church, not just the city of Rome. Francis does not believe this, and even made a reference to the idea that the pope is "first among equals". This means that he regards the Church as a mere loose confederacy, and also that he thinks the Church is, or should be, a democracy. The proof of this is, again, his blatant disobedience to Summorum Pontificum. He will never do anything to clean up the sodomite infiltrators in the Church outside of Rome because he doesn't feel that the pope has any authority outside of Rome. Bottom line here: many bishops and archbishops have been kept in line over the past eight years because Benedict was relatively aggressive in booting out extremely bad bishops. Benedict was feared in a healthy way. This guy is basically the big green light to every Marxist-homosexualist to just go ahead and do whatever, because they know Francis will never remove them or even chastise them, because Francis doesn't believe that the pope has any universal authority and is merely the bishop of the city of Rome proper - at least that is the excuse that will be given when nothing is done about abuses and heresies **that Francis is sympathetic towards.**

BUT, like all insecure leaders who say that they reject authority and obedience, reports from Buenos Aires are that he is an iron-fisted totalitarian against traditionalists, precisely because he has no confidence in or respect for his own authority, and thus assumes that no one else does either, and thus wields power against his perceived enemies only from brute force. Again, this is TEXTBOOK 20th century Marxist worldview and psychology. It is also the diametrical opposite of the virtue of MEEKNESS, which is power under control.

Next, he is an "ecu-maniac", which is to say that he is in the "all religions are equal and can't we all just get along" camp. In Buenos Aires he knelt before and received the "blessing" of a Superfun Rockband Church "pastor", and even received "communion" from a Protestant. There are pictures floating around of that episode. This is terrifying. He clearly does not have a strong belief in or understanding of Our Lord, His Church, the Mass or the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. But, as I have stated repeatedly, almost none of the men ordained in the 1960s, 70s or 80s do.

Next, he's a Jesuit. Now, I must disclose that I have a deep personal, seething, visceral hatred of Jesuits, but my hatred of them is a corollary to the fact that they long ago descended into truly evil heresies and apostasy. Jesuits, in addition to being a cult of sodomites who hate God, are also wait for it Marxists. Now Francis has in the past put up some token resistance to so-called "Liberation theology", which is just Communist Totalitarianism in religious drag, but he is huge, huge, huge on "social justice", which is merely code for Marxism. This guy's worldview revolves around giving people free stuff because it's nice, which as we have discussed is contrary to logic and reason, specifically in the subset of mathematics, and thus is contrary to Our Lord who is but FIRST the Logos, with the Divine Caritas (charity) proceeding out of the Logos. Bottom line, there will be zero positive assistance to the world from Francis with regards to the inevitable economic collapse. Not only will there be nothing helpful coming from him, he will almost certainly come out in favor of more debt, more "free stuff", and more rhetoric about how people are "entitled" to physical and service commodities (which are someone else's man-hours, remember) as "rights".

But Ann! He has gone on record against homosexual "marriage" and abortion!

Wow. Is this really how far we have sunk? The Roman pontiff is on record as being against sodomy and killing babies and we cite this as proof of ORTHODOXY? Really? I wonder if he also believes in gravity. Does belief in gravity constitute a conservative worldview now?

Benedict thought that between the "Natural Solution" (the passage of time yielding the death or retirement of the bad guys) and the appointments he was able to make over the last eight years that he had set up the College of Cardinals to elect a successor that was very much in the Ratzingerian camp. Benedict was wrong. Not only did they not elect a Ratzingerian, they elected the anti-Ratzinger. In the 2005 conclave Francis came in second to Ratzinger, which is to say that Francis was the "opposition". In what must have Benedict's mind reeling today, after eight years of purging and priming the College of Cardinals, the very men Ratzinger placed turned around and elected the anti-Ratzinger. This proves, as I have said all along, that playing prevent defense, namely the "natural solution" of waiting for the bad guys to die is UNSOUND. In war, you fix your bayonets, say your prayers, and you charge.

Tridentine Mass-goers and clergy, this guy will be on the warpath against us at some point. Prepare. Brace. He may attempt to undo Summorum Pontificum either directly or through intense passive aggression. Any hopes of reconciling the good guys in the SSPX is now totally over. Beyond that, the splinter factions will now claim that "they were right", and sadly even more schism will result, and more people will remain outside the Church. So sad.

We got what we deserved, and probably better than we deserve. God's chastisement of His people is sending them bad priests, bishops, and now, in all likelihood, a bad pope. What do you expect? Look around. The world is awash in staggering sin and blasphemy and no one will lift a finger to do anything about it. And, as my last essay on penance proved via my email box, no one is sorry or has any desire to make reparation to Our Lord for any of it. No one has the slightest comprehension of the notion of taking on the burden of guilt for sins that they didn't directly commit, which blows my mind because that is LITERALLY the ENTIRE POINT of the Incarnation. The mind reels at the collective obtuseness needed to miss that glaring point.

No one has the slightest comprehension of the idea of seeing Our Lord in agony and simply stepping over to Him and asking, "What can I do to help You? What can I do to make You feel better? Let me take some of Your burden. Let me go with You."

Nope. So long as we all leave Him alone in His Passion, He will leave us to our self-absorption and indifference.

The part of verse 24 that you put in boldface--I'm guessing you are saying that Paul is somehow adding to Jesus' work at the cross, but that is not what he's saying. What Jesus did at the cross, he did alone. He did it once, for all. Only He is worthy to make that sacrifice, because He is sinless.

Paul is rejoicing in his afflictions, not because he is adding to, or "helping" Jesus, but because he knows the trials he is going through, as a minister of the Gospel, will help strengthen the faith of the church--the body of Christ. The example of his trials will help fill up what is lacking in the faith of the church.

81
posted on 03/16/2013 7:13:15 AM PDT
by WXRGina
(The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.)

Matthew 16:18 is misinterpreted by catholics. Peter was another disciple of Jesus like the others.

Jesus’ church, His body of believers, is built on His sacrifice and His revelation to the minds and spirits of believers by the Holy Spirit. He said that Peter was blessed because he received knowledge of who Jesus is through revelation of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit had not yet been given to the saints (who are simply believers in Christ). Jesus was declaring that His church would be based on spiritual revelation from God.

If you look just a few verses later in the same chapter, Jesus rebukes Peter (calls him Satan, in fact) for not accepting that Jesus would have to go through his terrible death to defeat death.

My couple of comments last night were to my husband (who was raised catholic, but is now a Bible-believing Christian instead). I did not intend to argue with catholics, because that only wastes everyone’s time. I don’t intend to argue with catholics today, either—just this comment to you and one other who wrote last night.

82
posted on 03/16/2013 7:33:44 AM PDT
by WXRGina
(The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.)

People can say whatever they want. Recent history has another story. It is really too soon for anyone to make any judgements, but my family is from Latin America and we know the courage it took for a man like Bogoglio to stand up to dictators and activist clergy. We are gratefull to God, He knows what he is doing. Real Catholics understand that, and others shouldn’t even concern themselves. The Pope is still Catholic. The gates of Hades will NEVER prevail.

You are wrong, there. The Bible is full of instances where God, Himself, was full of righteous anger. And did He not also say that He hates sin?

Ann is right to be angry. I'm angry. Everyone with a brain should be angry at the destruction of our country, the degradation of our culture and people, AND at the blasphemy increasing in the Church and the various churches. Anger is what might motivate us to act. There is absolutely NOTHING holy, righteous, or prudent about remaining passive in the face of evil.

From anger, hatred, and all ill will, deliver us, O Lord. You are wrong, there.

Well then, you're calling the Litany of the Saints wrong.

And did He not also say that He hates sin?

Yes, including the sin of anger.

"Anger and fury are both of them abominable, and the sinful man shall be subject to them." Ecl. 27:33

"But I say to you that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgement. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matt. 5:22

There is absolutely NOTHING holy, righteous, or prudent about remaining passive in the face of evil.

One must distinguish the difference between "remaining passive in the face of evil" and responding inappropriately to a perceived evil.

"But above all these things have charity, which is the bond of perfection." Col. 3:14

St. Teresa of Avila, a TRUE reformer and a Doctor of the Church, had this to say:

"Charity and obedience... If one of these motives is not involved, I do not hesitate to say that solitude is best."

And finally, from St. Paul: "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." 1 Cor. 13:1

Let me clarify: you are wrong to apply this to Ann's writings. She is merely calling out evil in an unusually blunt fashion. I see far too many people use the "turn the other cheek, anger is wrong" concept as an excuse for complacency or even cowardice in the face of evil. Courtesy toward enemies, taken to an extreme, becomes capitulation.

Let me clarify: you are wrong to apply this to Ann's writings. She is merely calling out evil in an unusually blunt fashion.

Disagree. Righteous anger and "seething, visceral hatred" are not the same thing. Any time you use words such as "seething visceral hatred" a little voice in your head should be warning you that these are words that Jesus never would have uttered. To hate the entire Jesuit order and to denigrate our New Holy Father (who has done nothing to deserve our "righteous anger") is just plain wrong.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.